Yes. It is a giant waste of money. The government should also stop being terrorists, both at home and abroad (far more important, since there are very few "real" terrorists that actually affect the US directly).

Quote:

I'm just curious where the pro-gun people draw the line.

I don't. I think any gun that's available of the free market should be allowed to be owned. Hell, that even includes tanks (not that there's much of a market there). The real key to getting rid of the worst weapons would be to ban the military-industrial complex. That would even solve the infamous "should citizens be allowed to own nuclear weapons" quandary that gun-grabbers so love to pose. Imagine someone trying to produce a nuke on the free market (it would simply never happen).

Being serious though, on a practical level there is no "line". People, except criminals, should be allowed to own whatever guns they want. Since criminals will do so regardless (and the government has super-weapons that can destroy the whole planet), it's all the more reason the rest of us law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own whatever arms we choose.

No nuclear weapons on the open market? So you mean that your constitution isn't an absolute? Well I'll be darned.

I'm not sure you really grasp how seriously those first 10 Amendments are taken. Yes, there have been additions to our Constitution that corrected some grievous wrongs, but the thing is that if you repeal one of the 10 Amendments, then basically you cross a bridge into it being open season on the rest.

And I'm sorry, I don't see anyone throwing out phrases like "Some document written two centuries ago" or "Times change" when it comes to things like Due Process, Search & Seizure, Rights of the Accused, Quartering of Troops, etc. And let's not forget- Those things came after the Amendment on guns.

I'd sooner see a ban on semi-automatic handguns than some sort of cockamamie "Assault Weapons" ban that bans scary looking guns.

First of all (and I know this is a big statement, no sarcasm (unfortunately)) I'm not sure how seriously we should take anything written by slave owning, wife beating, rich white land owners from over 200 years ago. Not to say everything they said was wrong, much of it was right, but to consider any of it infallible is a mistake. Most of the first 10 Amendments have been proven again and again to be reasonable and for the public good by a myriad of professionals. The 2nd Amendment seems to be the only one held up with out scrutiny. I'm sorry, but I don't consider the fact that it exists to be enough to justify it's existence. And I haven't seen any reasonable arguments made otherwise. Oh, except Prince Charles is going to come to collect taxes. Because that's rational.

Having said that, fine the 2nd Amendment can continue to exist. However, the other liberties and freedoms you listed have been ratified and adapted according to the needs of society over time. Not through Constitutional means, but by the legislature and the courts. Suspects now get Miranda rights whereas at the time of the Constitution they weren't required, for example. So why can the government reassess that amendment, but not the 2nd? In fact, it was the Supreme Court that ruled the 'arms' mentioned in the Constitution meant firearms, since that word isn't used. So, actually, it was the courts that first interpreted the amendment. The Second Amendment calls for a well regulated militia. Fine, let's do that. Let's have small groups of citizens get guns and train, but keep their arms locked in the town's locker. But wait, the Supreme Court ruled on that too. Their interpretation was that individuals could carry weapons. Again, a modern day court ruling on the Constitution. But why can't they reinterpret it now? Why is that anti-American? Oh, I forgot, because it's only judicial activism and anti-Americanism when you happen to disagree with the outcome.

The first amendment has limitations. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Can't spout hate speech to incite a riot. All other amendments have limitations, too. Yet, this particular one is so sacred to so many. Why is that? Interesting that so many companies, that fund organizations like the NRA, make so much money off it, isn't it? Also interesting that the same people who claim to be so individualistic toe the line on what these incredibly wealthy organizations tell them. Stay scared, America. Keep buying things, keep looking for that boogieman around every corner whether it's a Commie, an Arab or even your neighbour. You're so individualistic! I'm sure you're not being used by any of the multinational corporations to further their cause.

The first amendment has limitations. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Can't spout hate speech to incite a riot. All other amendments have limitations, too. Yet, this particular one is so sacred to so many. Why is that?

Because it "shall not be infringed". Black and white.

More intuitively, because as tyrants like Mao Tse Tung have pointed out and demonstrated through history: "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Give up your guns and you give up your last resort to prevent utter hell from being released on the population when the government moves against it. All the trendies and yuppies may have long forgotten, but some of us still understand history and see which way the wind blows. That is the main reason why we will not give up our guns.

any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting.

“It was all focusing on enforcing existing law, administering things like improving the background database, things like that that do not involve a change in the law but enforcing and making sure that the present law is administered as well as possible,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).

...

The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said.

...

“How we are gathering data, for example, on guns that fall into the hands of criminals, and how we track that more effectively — there may be some steps that we can take administratively as opposed through legislation,” Obama said.

Oh God, the sheer unconstitutionality of it! Better enforcing existing laws, and making sure they are well administered. Improving the background database. Conducting national research.Sharing information between federal and state agencies. Gathering data! The nerve! These out of control Communists clearly consider themselves above the law!

Seriously, though: outside of the Fox News distort-o-verse, this is generally what executive orders are all about, and it's completely constitutional.

I'm not sure you really grasp how seriously those first 10 Amendments are taken. Yes, there have been additions to our Constitution that corrected some grievous wrongs, but the thing is that if you repeal one of the 10 Amendments, then basically you cross a bridge into it being open season on the rest.

And I'm sorry, I don't see anyone throwing out phrases like "Some document written two centuries ago" or "Times change" when it comes to things like Due Process, Search & Seizure, Rights of the Accused, Quartering of Troops, etc. And let's not forget- Those things came after the Amendment on guns.

I'd sooner see a ban on semi-automatic handguns than some sort of cockamamie "Assault Weapons" ban that bans scary looking guns.

First of all (and I know this is a big statement, no sarcasm (unfortunately)) I'm not sure how seriously we should take anything written by slave owning, wife beating, rich white land owners from over 200 years ago. Not to say everything they said was wrong, much of it was right, but to consider any of it infallible is a mistake. Most of the first 10 Amendments have been proven again and again to be reasonable and for the public good by a myriad of professionals. The 2nd Amendment seems to be the only one held up with out scrutiny. I'm sorry, but I don't consider the fact that it exists to be enough to justify it's existence. And I haven't seen any reasonable arguments made otherwise. Oh, except Prince Charles is going to come to collect taxes. Because that's rational.

You simply have no idea how the U.S. Constitutional limits the Federal gov't's gun regulations. The 2nd Amendment? So far, it only prohibits a TOTAL FIREARM BAN and protects only non-automatic firearms IN THE HOME. And, for the second time, that protection only exists because of the passage of the 14th Amendment AFTER the Civil War (you know, the war that freed the slaves). If it weren't for the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't even apply to the States.

Here's Akhil Amar, professor at Yale, showing you that current Supreme Court interpretation relies more on the actions after the Civil War than before.

Originally, the Second Amendment is very much about local militias keeping check on a federal military establishment. It’s about Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill. It’s a product of the American Revolution. The motto at the founding is when guns are outlawed only the king’s men will have guns.

Now go type in ‘Freedmen’s Bureau.’ Do you see it?

The militia men have become klansmen. The uniforms have come off. In the original, very far corner of the screen, right hand of the page, is one black person. Now there are lots of black people. Now there’s a uniformed officer keeping law and order. But as soon as the army goes, these blacks will be vulnerable. They’ll at least need these bayonets in their homes or they’ll be terrorized.

In a nutshell, almost everything ordinary Americans think they know about the Bill of Rights, including the phrase ‘Bill of Rights,’ comes from the Reconstruction period. Not once did the Founders refer to these early amendments as a bill of rights. We read everything through the prism of the 14th amendment — including the right to bear and keep arms.

Akhil Amar further states that even without the 2nd Amendment, there would likely be an unenumerated right to certain firearms at least in the home.

I asked Amar what all that meant for the Second Amendment today. “Instead of obsessing over the wording of the amendment, which doesn’t fit anymore, we need to talk about unenumerated rights in America,” he replied. “Having guns in homes for self protection is a very deep part of American culture. You couldn’t even get rid of those guns if you tried. It would make prohibition look like a day in the park. Today, almost everywhere in America you can have a gun in your home and that should be respected. But that doesn’t mean you need guns that can mow 26 people down. We can talk about reasonable regulation.”

While he is right, I think he (and most people) misunderstand what a firearms ban is really about, The real purpose of a firearms ban would be strangling the private-market firearms industry to reduce ease of availability and quality of both firearms and ammunition. Even if consumers responded by purchasing inferior blackmarket products like they do with drugs and did with alcohol, such a ban could still be called a success so long as both fewer firearms were in circulation, those in circulation were less reliable, and ammunition was scarce. Madoka having twenty guns in his basement is no big deal. No reason to go seizing his firearms. No need for a "war on guns." All you need to do is shut down the major producers and distributors and you'd score a net win.

Obviously this will not happen, and that is fine; guns are legitimate tools in many circumstances in which modern Americans find themselves anyway. But that does not justify misrepresentation of the proposed policy in question.

I asked Amar what all that meant for the Second Amendment today. “Instead of obsessing over the wording of the amendment, which doesn’t fit anymore, we need to talk about unenumerated rights in America,” he replied. “Having guns in homes for self protection is a very deep part of American culture. You couldn’t even get rid of those guns if you tried. It would make prohibition look like a day in the park. Today, almost everywhere in America you can have a gun in your home and that should be respected. But that doesn’t mean you need guns that can mow 26 people down. We can talk about reasonable regulation.”

While he is right, I think he (and most people) misunderstand what a firearms ban is really about, The real purpose of a firearms ban would be strangling the private-market firearms industry to reduce ease of availability and quality of both firearms and ammunition. Even if consumers responded by purchasing inferior blackmarket products like they do with drugs and did with alcohol, such a ban could still be called a success so long as both fewer firearms were in circulation, those in circulation were less reliable, and ammunition was scarce. Madoka having twenty guns in his basement is no big deal. No reason to go seizing his firearms. No need for a "war on guns." All you need to do is shut down the major producers and distributors and you'd score a net win.

Why would you want to ban the manufacturing of handguns? Either most of the deaths could be prevented through a ban on semi-automatics and automatics, or we would find that the American sub-cultural appetite for such arms remained so strong (as with narcotics) that it only had a marginal impact on the death rate.

I asked Amar what all that meant for the Second Amendment today. “Instead of obsessing over the wording of the amendment, which doesn’t fit anymore, we need to talk about unenumerated rights in America,” he replied. “Having guns in homes for self protection is a very deep part of American culture. You couldn’t even get rid of those guns if you tried. It would make prohibition look like a day in the park. Today, almost everywhere in America you can have a gun in your home and that should be respected. But that doesn’t mean you need guns that can mow 26 people down. We can talk about reasonable regulation.”

While he is right, I think he (and most people) misunderstand what a firearms ban is really about, The real purpose of a firearms ban would be strangling the private-market firearms industry to reduce ease of availability and quality of both firearms and ammunition. Even if consumers responded by purchasing inferior blackmarket products like they do with drugs and did with alcohol, such a ban could still be called a success so long as both fewer firearms were in circulation, those in circulation were less reliable, and ammunition was scarce. Madoka having twenty guns in his basement is no big deal. No reason to go seizing his firearms. No need for a "war on guns." All you need to do is shut down the major producers and distributors and you'd score a net win.

Why would you want to ban the manufacturing of handguns? Either most of the deaths could be prevented through a ban on semi-automatics and automatics, or we would find that the American sub-cultural appetite for such arms remained so strong (as with narcotics) that it only had a marginal impact on the death rate.

I did not say I did want to ban the production of handguns. Rather, I am simply saying such a ban on manufacturing and distribution of firearms and, perhaps more importantly, their ammunition, would almost surely be more effective than certain parties seem to believe in a strictly quantitative sense. Can we achieve such ends through less restrictive means? Probably, and if so, that is fine, but no reason to use dubious rhetoric to that end. A quantitatively-effective gun ban is totally possible from a purely logistical perspective.

[
Much (most?) of the gun violence in the U.S. is between criminals, but the total intentional death rate is 3.7 per 10,000.
The fatality rate for Korean pedestrians is 4.4 per 10,000, and that's almost entirely innocents being killed.
So as a law abiding citizen, you're far, FAR more likely to be killed crossing the street in Korea than by a gun in the U.S. Where's the international outrage over that? Or is it a "we could prevent those deaths if every culture was like ours" thing when people look at the U.S.?

You are also more likely to die a road death in the U.S as well.

Quote:

Proportioned to population, South Korea ranked fourth among 31 OECD nations, logging 12.1 road deaths per 100,000 people. Poland, Greece and the U.S. had higher rates, while Iceland remained the safest with 3.8.

Rather, I am simply saying such a ban on manufacturing and distribution of firearms and, perhaps more importantly, their ammunition, would almost surely be more effective than certain parties seem to believe in a strictly quantitative sense.

Banning firearms and ammunition would definitely reduce the number of 'massacre' type deaths. Is it possible to amend the Constitution to do that? Yes. Is it politically feasible? Obviously not. And circumventing the Constitution to do that or something similar would have consequences that would dwarf the occasional mass shooting. There are a lot people in the U.S. who value the ownership of firearms and the freedom to own the types they want.

And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has acknowledged that there isn't even support for a return to the 1990's "assault weapons" ban.

And soon the ever vacillating knee-jerkers will move on to the next terrible thing that the government should make more rules on. The sooner the better, I say.

Rather, I am simply saying such a ban on manufacturing and distribution of firearms and, perhaps more importantly, their ammunition, would almost surely be more effective than certain parties seem to believe in a strictly quantitative sense.

Banning firearms and ammunition would definitely reduce the number of 'massacre' type deaths. Is it possible to amend the Constitution to do that? Yes. Is it politically feasible? Obviously not. And circumventing the Constitution to do that or something similar would have consequences that would dwarf the occasional mass shooting.

All reasonably true, but those are political and legal obstacles rather than logistical ones. No reason to make up dubious logistical objections when we have completely valid political and legal ones, right?

All reasonably true, but those are political and legal obstacles rather than logistical ones.

It becomes a logistical problem when various States refuse to enforce the law,

No, state governmental insolence is still a political problem. But you know, if, say, the entire south were to secede over gun rights, that would be a wildly effective political solution to various other political problems.